[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 2 (Friday, January 5, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E23-E24]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PRESIDENT'S SURGE AND ACCELERATE POLICY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. NICK J. RAHALL II

                            of west virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 4, 2007

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, President Bush's war in Iraq has now gone 
longer than America's involvement in World War II. Now we learn 
President Bush intends to escalate the number of American troops in 
Iraq. The great question across the land today is: is more of the same, 
the answer? Will more of the same stabilize Iraq, or for that matter 
the Middle East?
  In all this long war in Iraq, we cannot help but wonder, what if?
  What if we had not gone to war?
  What if we had listened to that very important and vocal minority who 
stood against the war when the President lead us down that misbegotten 
road? Oh yes, I agree we are where we are today and we need to get out 
of this mess together. I have been patient since my ``no'' vote on this 
war four years ago and my ``yes'' vote almost 17 years ago for the 
first Gulf War.
  Of course, there are others who are also asking what if. They are the 
family and friends of the young men and women who served their country. 
They are the loved ones of those who have not been lucky enough to make 
it home. They are those who sacrificed marriage, children, jobs, all in 
the name of a war many now casually say was a mistake.
  They are those, like my son-in-law, who sacrificed seeing the birth 
of his and my daughter's first child.
  These moments are painful for families across the country as we 
recently celebrated the holiday season. These moments make us want to 
dwell in the hope of the question, what if?

[[Page E24]]

  But we must not dwell, because in reflection we sometimes miss 
opportunity. The President is set to announce that he wants to see a 
``surge'' force of approximately 20,000 extra soldiers to support the 
ongoing civil war in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, it does not take a rocket scientist to calculate the 
odds that more troops will mean more wounded, more fatalities, more 
losses to American families. Is the President ready for 20,000 more 
grieving families? Worse yet, has the President considered what this 
will do to the existing all volunteer force?
  Retired Army Colonel Douglas McGregor has been quoted as saying, ``It 
will break the force, which in my estimation is broken already. It will 
leave you with no strategic reserves.'' Retired Army Colonel David Hunt 
has said, ``Everyone we met was on a second tour, at least, and many 
were on their fourth or fifth combat tour in either Iraq or 
Afghanistan. The soldiers are tired; the families are going nuts. It's 
not the solution.''

  But then, Madam Speaker, the President has not shown that this is 
truly about the sacrifice of our men and women. If it were, all of the 
options presented to the President would be open for consideration, not 
just the ones that already fit into his ideological philosophy. The 
report from the Iraq Study Group would not have been as casually tossed 
aside as were the advisements of the Presidents own military leaders--
career servicemen and women who have given their entire professional 
lives to protecting America.
  Over 3,000 have already lost their lives, and that's only the 
Americans. One journalist in particular, is asking what if on his own. 
Keith Olbermann, host of Countdown with Keith Olbermann has asked:
  ``What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them--and was then to 
announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?
  ``This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President 
Bush's ``new Iraq strategy,'' and his impending speech to the nation, 
which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about 
troop increases and ``sacrifice.''
  ``The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since 
the release of the Iraq Study Group.
  ``He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.
  ``If the BBC is right--and we can only pray it is not--he has settled 
on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: 
more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but 
as part of some flabby plan for ``sacrifice.'' (Countdown, MSNBC, 1/2/
07)
  Madam Speaker, the President's proposal reminds me of the ostrich who 
would rather stick his head in the sand, than face the reality that 
Americans want our soldiers home now. Not after another 20,000 have had 
to die for a strategy that is entirely wrong.
  In Olbermann's words, ``The additional men and women you have 
sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.'' Which is 
exactly what they will be, bodies to absorb the surge in the number of 
insurgents which this senseless war has created. This senseless, 
endless war, as Mr. Olbermann states has succeeded in two ways:
  ``It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the 
collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, 
against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
  It has gotten many of us used to the idea--the virtual ``white 
noise''--of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of 
vague ``sacrifice'' for some fluid cause, too complicated to be 
interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but 
ultimately meaningless phrase ``the war on terror.''
  And the war's second accomplishment--your second accomplishment, 
sir--is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even 
out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their 
families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.'' 
(Countdown, MSNBC, 1/2/07)
  Which, Madam Speaker, brings me back to the question of what if? In 
light of all of the evidence to the contrary, what if we, as Congress, 
allow the President to send tens of thousands of more men and women to 
keep a peace that does not exist?
  Madam Speaker, it is my hope that four years from now, I will not 
have to look back on this question of what if with the same heavy heart 
that I do for the past four years.

                          ____________________